Related Articles:

It all comes down to the potential conflict between the franchisor’s philosophy in relation to market share goals and the franchisee’s desire to maximise the profitability of his individual units.Here’s what this issue is all about: say the total investment in a theoretical franchise is R250 000 per unit and the units average net income of 15% of gross sales. Now, suppose you had a choice of developing a given market with one of the following two scenarios:

Scenarios

The market could hold 10 units that would each average R1 million of gross sales and R150 000 of net income. Hence,the total gross sales from the market would amount to R10 million, and the total net income to franchisees would be R1.5 million. The total amount franchisees invest to build the 10 units is R2.5 million, so their average annual rate of return on investment is 60%.

The market could hold 30 units that each average R667 000 of gross sales and R100 000 of net income. Hence, the total gross sales from the market would be R20 million, and the total net income to franchisees would be R3 million. The total invested by franchisees to build the 30 units is R7.5 million, so their average annual rate of return on investment is 40%.

Which is the better approach?

There really is no correct answer, but you’ll usually find franchisees prefer the first approach and franchisors prefer the second. The reasons are straight forward and reflect the self-interest of each party.

Franchisees usually prefer an approach that maximises their rate of return per unit. Strategy number one features less investment, less management responsibility and a higher per-unit rate of return. If you owned one of these units, you would almost certainly like the numbers in the first example better.

Franchisors usually prefer an approach that maximises market share. Their only caveat typically is that the overall rate of return to the franchisee needs to remain high enough so the franchisor can attract the franchisees they need to open the units. The fact is that, even though a 40% return is not as appealing as a 60% return, it’s still quite attractive.

The franchisor normally derives its ongoing income from royalty fees paid by franchisees, usually expressed as a percentage of gross sales. It’s easy to see the franchisor will have twice as much income under the second scenario. If I were the franchisor, I would certainly prefer the second approach to the first.

Conflicting interests

So, at the heart of the issue is this question: Where is the appropriate balance between the somewhat conflicting economic interests of the franchisee and the franchisor?

The real-world answer is that the franchisor gets to decide what they believe is the best balance for their system. They define the territory sizes and other factors that determine the density of units they’re willing to place in a market. These decisions by the franchisor ultimately establish where the average individual unit sales, income and rate of return numbers will fall.

You then get to decide if the balance that any given franchisor has incorporated into their system is acceptable to you.If you look at the average numbers, and they don’t seem reasonable from your perspective, walk away. If the average numbers are within the standards you’re looking for, then saturation is not an issue for you with that franchise system.

Either way, you get to make the final call. Just make sure you carefully research the franchise so you know what these numbers are.

About the Author

Jeff Elgin has developed a consulting system that matches pre-screened, high-quality prospective franchisees with the franchise opportunities that best fit their personal profile.

Disclaimer: Reliance on the information this site contains is at your own risk. Readers are advised to consult their attorney and/or financial advisor prior to pursuing any investment. Please read our Editorial Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions of Use.

Is this information out of date or incorrect? Report it to our webmaster.